Immigration Policy: Is The Other Boot About To Drop?
- Immigration Policy: Is The Other Boot About To Drop?
By Kevin MacDonald
Almost 3 ½ years ago I published Thinking about Neoconservatism,
analyzing the neoconservative movement in the context of my studies
of the behavior pattern of Jewish groups in the societies where they
live. I concluded neoconservatism was the latest of a long
procession of political and intellectual movements dominated and
essentially controlled by members of the Jewish community, in effect
dedicated to a particular concept of how to promote the interests of
that community. I specifically cited foreign policy and immigration
as hallmark interests.
At the time, and for a couple of years later, this was an
unmentionable theory. I am told certain prominent web sites stopped
linking to VDARE.com after my essay was published. The malign
presence of the SPLC (the "Southern Poverty Law Center", a notorious
ethnically-oriented Political Correctness enforcer) was soon felt on
the scene, not coincidentally, and it named VDARE.COM a "hate
group", a sobriquet more normally associated with groups advocating
violence and other forms of illegality.
But now public debate has changed considerably. Serious antiwar
commentary routinely connects the Iraq/Iran policy problem with the
influence of Israel and her friends in America. (See here and here
So I ask now: will the other boot drop? Will this candor next extend
to the immigration controversy?
The vast majority of Americans live under the comfortable illusion
that theirs is a free country. They suppose that issues are openly
and honestly debated in the newspapers and on talk shows. In this
imaginary world, all issues affecting public policy are on the table
and are constantly scrutinized by the best and the brightest.
But that is simply not the case. In fact, I would go so far as to
argue the oppositethat virtually all of the really critical issues
affecting the United States and its role in the world are actually
excluded from discussion in the elite media or in the political
The classic case: US policy in the Middle East. Despite the obvious
fact that US support for Israel has crucial implications for war and
peace, the vast majority of Americans are oblivious to what is
really going on in this region.
Most Americans would be appalled to learn the truth about what
former President Jimmy Carter terms "the abominable oppression and
persecution in the occupied Palestinian territories, with a rigid
system of required passes and strict segregation between Palestine's
citizens and Jewish settlers in the West Bank." Carter calls
attention to the "enormous imprisonment wall now under
construction, snaking through what is left of Palestine to encompass
more and more land for Israeli settlers." (Los Angeles Times,
December 8 2006).
Carter's recent book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid0, and his
courageous defense of it, seem finally to be triggering a newly open
discussion of Israeli actions and Jewish influence in the U.S.
Coming on the heels of the work of the University of Chicago's John
Mearsheimer and Harvard University's Stephen Walt on the Israel
Lobby, it highlights many of the same issues. Indeed, Carter has
explicitly endorsed Mearsheimer and Walt's conclusion that American
policy in the Middle East does not reflect genuine American
interests, but instead those of the Israel Lobby. (Carter Shares
Insight On Peace In Mideast, by Marty Rosen, Coastal Post, January 3
This is why it is possible to hope that the role of Jewish influence
in promoting the epochal change inaugurated by the 1965 Immigration
Act might also now be discussed openly and honestly
Carter is quite clear that open discussion of Israel's policies in
the U.S. has been suppressed:
"This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government
is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-
Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant
contrary voices. It would be almost politically suicidal for members
of Congress to suggest that Israel comply with international law
or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians .
What is even more difficult to comprehend is why the editorial pages
of the major newspapers and magazines in the United States exercise
similar self-restraint, quite contrary to private assessments
expressed quite forcefully by their correspondents in the Holy Land."
In fact, it is not at all difficult to comprehend how this regime
of "self-restraint" is maintained. President Carter himself, and
Profs. Mearsheimer and Walt, point to pressure by the Israel Lobby
on the media, consequent media self-censorship, and the intimidation
Carter's book has created the astounding spectacle of a former
president of the United States and Nobel Peace Prize winner being
called an anti-Semite, being condemned by mainstream Jewish
organizations such as the ADL and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and
having his offers to give talks at major universities with high
Jewish enrollment rejected. The saga of the book's treatment on
Amazon has been a farce.
The ADL's Abe Foxman is one of many who have used the old canard of
anti-Semitism to condemn both President Carter and Mearsheimer and
Walt. (My favorite title in this genre is by David Horowitz: "Jimmy
Carter: Jew-Hater, Genocide-Enabler, Liar".)
I focus on Foxman's comments because he heads a mainstream Jewish
activist organization and thus reflects the opinions of at least a
major component of the organized Jewish community. (It has long been
noticed that there is a gap between the attitudes of the majority of
American Jews and the attitudes of the established Jewish leaders.
This is especially apparent on issues such as the neoconservative
agenda of regime change in the Middle East and support of
expansionist right-wing governments in Israel.)
The point here is that the Jewish Establishment will strongly resist
any discussion of Jewish influence or dual loyalty in any area of
public policy, no matter how judicious and factually-based it may
be. These Jewish leaders have a strong sense of history. They know
that Jews have repeatedly become elites in European societies. But
they also realize that Jewish power and influence and dual loyalty
have been potent themes of anti-Semitism throughout the ages. And
they know that increases in Jewish power and influence have often
been followed by the rise of rise of anti-jewish movements0
spearheaded by people whose interests have been damaged by that
Jewish power and influence.
The strategy used by the Jewish Establishment is not to condemn the
neocons for acting on their strong emotional and ethnic ties to
Israel and manipulating the Bush administration into the disaster of
Iraq and a looming war with Iran. Nor is it to urge that the Israel
Lobby be scaled back in an effort to bring it more in line with a
reasonable view of American interests. Rather, they go into the full
blown smear and intimidation mode.
Hence the fury among Jewish activists when General Wesley Clark
blurted our that "New York money people" are gung-ho for bankrolling
politicians who will support US involvement in a war against Iran;
and that talk of a war with Iran is common in Israel. As Matthew
Iglesias, himself Jewish, notes: "Everything Clark said is true.
What's more, everybody knows it's true." (American Prospect, January
23, 2007). But, as we should know by now, truth is irrelevant here.
Partly this is because, thus far, these tactics have been
tremendously effective. The American Jewish Establishment will not
change these tactics until they stop working. After all, it is a
long road from widespread discussion on the internet and occasional
mentions in the above-ground media to having a real influence on the
President and in the halls of Congress. There, change will be much
This is especially true given the very large role of Jewish money in
funding the newly-resurgent Democrats. On the Republican side, as
Scott McConnell has argued, the neocons may be down, but they are
far from out. And they are still pushing for war against Iran.
I think too that the American Jewish leadership no longer has the
flexibility to use any other strategy. The radical expansionists,
often motivated by religious and ethnic fanaticism, have long been
in control in Israelsince 1967 really. They are the vanguard of the
Jewish community, and as usual, they they pull the rest of the
Jewish community with them0. The moderates (aka "self-hating Jews")
have been shoved aside and do not really count any more. Similarly,
the organized Jewish community in America is dominated by the
expansionists. Jews who do not sign on to Israel's expansionist
agenda are relegated to the fringes.
Indeed, one of the arguments of Mearsheimer and Walt is that Israel
would be far better off if it could not persuade Washington to
support its expansionist agenda. And reasonable Jews like Jerome
Slater are wondering what it takes to "save Israel from itself":
"The real issue is the willed ignorancethe psychological need not
to knowof our community. The priceto the Palestinians, to the
Israelis, and to American national securityis already unbearable,
and it may well soon become apocalyptic."
These comments bring to mind historian Albert Lindemann's statement
in his book Esau's Tears0 (P535)
"Jews actually do not want to understand their pastor at least
those aspects of their past that have to do with the hatred directed
at them, since understanding may threaten other elements of their
complex and often contradictory identities."
Whether it's about the past or the present, the pattern among Jews
is self-deception0 and willful ignorance.
As in the case of policy in the Middle East, it is no secret that
Jewish organizations were at the forefront of the immigration policy
shift implemented by the 1965 Act. Consider the assessment of
Vanderbilt University historian Hugh Davis Graham in his book
Collision Course: The Strange Convergence of Affirmative Action and
Immigration Policy in America0
"Most important for the content of immigration reform, the driving
force at the core of the movement, reaching back to the 1920s, were
Jewish organizations long active in opposing racial and ethnic
quotas Following the shock of the Holocaust, Jewish leaders had
been especially active in Washington in furthering immigration
reform. To the public, the most visible evidence of the immigration
reform drive was played by Jewish legislative leaders, such as
Representative Celler and Senator Jacob Javits of New York. Less
visible, but equally important, were the efforts of key advisers on
presidential and agency staffs. These included senior policy
advisers such as Julius Edelson and Harry Rosenfield in the Truman
administration, Maxwell Rabb in the Eisenhower White House, and
presidential aide Myer Feldman, assistant secretary of state Abba
Schwartz, and deputy attorney general Norbert Schlei in the Kennedy-
Johnson administration." (pp. 5657)
In the past year, there has been much discussion of illegal
immigration. It tapped into a very large reservoir of public anger
about the lack of control of our borders and, I think, the
transformations that immigration is unleashing. The fact that
illegal immigration is, after all, illegal made it difficult to keep
off the public radar (What part of illegal don't you understand??).
But this contrasts with almost no discussion at all in the
Mainstream Media of the question of the 1,000,000 or so legal
immigrants that come to the U.S. every yearno discussion of their
effect on the economy, social services, crime and competition at
elite universities; no discussion of their effect on the long term
ethnic composition of the U.S. and the displacement of native
populations in various sectors of the economy; and no discussion of
whether most Americans really want all of this. (They don't.) The
fact that large scale legal immigration causes exactly the same
difficulties as large scale illegal inflow is a non-subject.
Those who question the power and influence of the Israel Lobby are
quickly labeled anti-Semites. The terms of choice for anyone who
thinks the U.S. should have any restrictions at all on immigration
are "racist" and "nativist".
It is exactly the same routine: Media self-censorship, pressure on
the media and politicians who stray from official orthodoxy, and
intimidation via labeling, anathematizing, and ultimately loss of
Of course, there are other issues that fall into the same category
of "not fit for public discussion". Perhaps the main one is the
role of genetic influences on intelligence and behavior.
But the two issues of Israel and immigration relaxation (in the
U.S.) have in common a deep and straightforward Jewish commitment to
particular policies. My contention is that both policies have been
construed by Jewish leaders as being helpful to the security and
political influence of their community.
In the case of Israel, this is self-evident. In the case of
immigration policy, there ample documentation [PDF] of a consistent
interest by the Jewish community, both in America and in Europe, in
ending the hegemony of the host community amongst whom they live.
The measures taken to enforce their chosen objectives suggest there
is indeed an element of truth in what Foxman dismisses as "the old
canard and conspiracy theory of Jewish control of the media,
Congress, and the U.S. government".
I have presented the facts about Jewish influence in both
immigration0 and the Middle East elsewhere. This has been extremely
unwelcome. And it is not at all surprising that the Jewish community
would strenuously resist these conclusions.
Nevertheless, on foreign policy matters what is going on has
obviously become increasingly apparent to a lot of smart people with
As the incoming 110th Congress starts up, a crucial question will be
if this new comprehension will dawn in an area in which, I believe,
it is even more critical: America's post-1965 immigration disaster.
Kevin MacDonald is Professor of Psychology at California State
WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE
To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW